Organizations as Complex Responsive Processes - Essay Example

What are the implications for managers of Stacey's view of Organisations as 'complex responsive processes' Introduction Stacey introduces the complexresponsive processes as an analogue to the complex adaptive system that is the organisation. In line with this thought, a number of standard practices that managers have been adopting in their day-to-day work have been questioned by the author. This includes forming a strategy defined by the mission of the company, human interaction and thereby the growth in the organisation, the influence of these positions taken by the people in taking the company to the next step in their objective have all been modified and questioned. All this stems from one concept, the concept of complexity. This affects the way managers approach strategic management, chaos in their organisation and in managing the complex responsive processes that form the basic interaction between the people. Strategic Management "Strategic management is the process of actively participating in the conversations around important emerging issues. Strategic direction is not set in advance but understood in hindsight as it is emerging or after it has emerged." (Stacey 2003, Ch:17, p 15). Stacey's approach to the organizational structure as a complex adaptive systems which are analogous to viewing them as a combination of complex responsive processes, modifies the approach of the manager to a great extent. According to Stacey, since the organisation is formed too many complex factors, the extent to which the happening in the organisation can be predicted is very low. Every organisation is individualistic. The self organising experience of the organisations tends to make them evolve into a form of their own. Every individual who make up the organisation responds in his or her own way making the organisation all the more complex. Therefore, Stacey suggests, that it is highly impossible for a manager to create a clear target for the organisation and move towards it (Stacey 2001). It is quite possible for the company to get affected by the varied factors and the target itself could get diluted. This concept is also reinforced by other writers. Strategy is structured chaos, says Shona Brown and Kathleen Eisenhardt (1998). Whether the manager looks at the organisation from an external position or from the internal position, the chaos in the company has influence on the way the work is done in the company. This also affects the decisions and the interactions, thereby making the strategy an evolving concept rather than one fixed strategy that would move towards an achievement. More often, according to Stacey, modelling theories tend to treat the number of factors that affect the chaotic behaviour in an impersonal way; whereas, all these are highly subjective and tend to vary with the people and their moods. This has to be taken into consideration when deciding on the strategy of the organisation that is to be worked out. There can possibly be an overall plan or objective or mission and the methodology to achieve the same could be evolved as the work progresses. Sometimes this evolution could also occur when a problem comes up. All this implies that there will continue to exist, the control and targeted management in the organisation; however, organisations cannot survive by following a blue print. Instead, it is the spontaneous self-organisation that moves it forward. (Stacey 2003, Ch:13 p 19). Stacey's Alternatives Stacey suggests a number of alternatives to the managers. These alternatives under the chaotic condition that most of the organisations tend to be in, are the following: 1. In the ever changing context that the businesses are in, it is essential for the manager to take a different perspective on various common aspects that make up the world of change. 2. Stacey views, mind itself can be thought of as a set of complex responsive processes, making it a subset of the organisation. With numerous people making up the organisation and every person is a set of complex responsive processes. This understanding moves the manager to view the behaviour of every individual in a way that would take into consideration the entire gamut of processes. 3. Since the free will of a person seems to be evolving out of the complex responsive processes that a person is subjected to, the entire free will or decision that the person takes is governed by this. The response that a person provides to any interaction will therefore, depend on the complex responsive processes that he was subjected to. This would also ensure that the person will not get or make a decision of his own or of his own 'free will'. All the decisions of the 'free will' are influenced. 4. The same is the case with the intention of every job that is done. People's intention is influenced by the complex responsive processes he or she is subjected to. This makes the person to carry an intention for every job that is done. 5. Stacey further strengthens the thought that human beings form the basic structure in the organisation or the building block of the organisation is influenced by the processes that are external to him or her. He further argues that the relationship psychology is more important than the cognitive psychology of the person. Stacey has provided a set of alternate thought processes through the concept of complexity and processes of interaction in an organisation. Therefore, a manager needs to take into consideration the different perception before he can set himself to work. The approach to individuals change with Stacey's concepts. Complex Responsive processes The organisation is controlled according to Stacey, by the relationship psychology. There is no difference between the group and the individual. Psychologically both behave in much the same way (Clegg et al, 2005). The influence of other complex processes on the behavioural traits of both the group and the individual is identical. They are both influenced by the changes and by the thoughts of its members (itself) and that of the other external people or groups. The units of the organisation may be the individual or the group itself; this does have a response in the making of the complex responsive processes and they behave similarly. The manager need not make any differentiation between the group and the individual while handling them from the psychological point of view. Interactions and relationships are the key to making up an organisational theme as well as the interacting processes. Therefore, this is going to have a bearing impact on the way a manager will work in his organisation. The themes are bred by interactions and the conversations in the organisation build the themes. Conversation makes up the organisation. Moreover, conversation is a self-organising phenomenon. There is no way some one could control the conversation between two individuals. What one talks cannot be controlled; so is the conversation and therefore, the themes that get built in the company. These are dependent on relationships and conversations that abound in the company. When themes are inline with the company or organisational objectives or themes, then these become legitimate themes. The power relationships and the anxiety tend to make the organisational complexity more influential in decision making (Stacey 2003a). Therefore, it is the manager's responsibility to understand the power equations and the anxiety that goes behind it. In addition to these, the conversations whether they are shadow or otherwise are the ones that would build the theme in the company. Only if the organisational theme is also in line with the theme that gets built in the company, it is not possible for the company to progress in line with their objectives. A manager who would maintain or would like to maintain their objectives need to ensure that the conversations that are built in the organisation is in line with the organisational theme. Free flowing conversations would slowly lead to the edge of chaos (Brown & Eisenhardt 1998). Highly emotional and charged conversations normally precede disintegration whereas free flowing and flexible conversation would build 'dynamics of bounded instability'. This could, if allowed to grow too rich and if there are too many themes, then this could lead to disintegration. When the themes are limited and are impoverished, these would lead to stability. The manager has to keep a weary eye on this happening. Conclusion Stacey like other authors on chaos in strategic planning and organisation has brought up the various influencing factors in the organisation. The manager needs to take into consideration all the factors and also the factor that there cannot be one single model for the entire organisation. It is important that the manager realises that chaos is a part of the edge conditions. Free thought is not really free as it sounds since it is influenced by the number of people and groups. The manager also needs to take into account the fact that there has to be corrective steps to ensure that the organisational theme is reached and that this is grossly influenced by the themes created by conversations and interactions in the company. References 1. Clegg S, Kornberger M and Pitsis T (2005) Managing and Organisations. Sage. 2. Pascale (1990) Managing on the Edge. Touchstone, Reprint (1991). 3. Ralph D Stacey (2001) Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation. Routledge. 4. Ralph D Stacey (2003) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity. FT/Prentice Hall. 5. Ralph D Stacey (2003a) Learning as an activity of Interdependent People. The Learning Organisation. Vol 10 Iss.6. pp325-331. 6. Shano L Brown & Kathleen M Eisenhardt (1998) Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. Read More